Abuse is indefensible • Hacker News Board

Re: Abuse is indefensible

#151

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Nov 04, 2015, 3:02 PM UTC

x1024 wrote: post #84

tptacek wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. Can you explain how this particular code is "safe" or "unsafe"? Again: I'm curious as to how much of what Linus says is taken at face value on HN. I'm even more interested now, because the fulcrum of Linus's argument isn't safety.

You are committing a logical fallacy. I'm not "the voice of HN", nor am I a representative sample of "what HN thinks". This is just my opinion. Using a builtin operation ("addition and comparison of integers") is always safer than using a function that may or may not work the same everywhere. I.e. a nonstandard function. Also, the proposed code has more levels of indirection, therefore places a higher cognitive load…

[deleted]

Re: Abuse is indefensible

#152

Post by enneff » Wed, Nov 04, 2015, 3:04 PM UTC

x1024 wrote: post #148

So which is it? Does ranting have a huge impact that keeps people out, or does it "not have the power"? And if it's powerless, why are you so eager to censor it, then? Also, why don't you keep in your lane and only oppress the Go community with your code of conduct? There's no need to also invade Linux.

It is both. It means the only people who stick around are those who can tolerate the childishness. This certainly reduces the number of capable people that are willing to contribute to the project.

I don't care much how Linus acts since I don't work with him. Some people try to emulate him and I sometimes come into contact with them; that's not great for me, but far be it from me to tell Linus how to act on his own mailing list. All I'm doing here is pointing out the fallacies in your defence of his silly behaviour.

Do you also prefer his hysterical style? I am hardly "invading Linux" by commenting on an HN thread.

Re: Abuse is indefensible

#153

Post by tptacek » Wed, Nov 04, 2015, 3:04 PM UTC

raverbashing wrote: post #149

tptacek wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm afraid that doesn't clarify, because if the overflow_usub code is broken in that sense, then so is the code Linus is advocating for. Do you still think "broken" was the right word to use? Why?

I think there's also the issue of limited compiler support for that feature Maybe broken is too strong a word I agree

overflow_usub is the code that gets called when your compiler doesn't support __builtin_usub_overflow (Linus opposes both the function and the intrinsic, of course).

Re: Abuse is indefensible

#154

Post by vox_mollis » Wed, Nov 04, 2015, 3:04 PM UTC

dwb wrote: post #22

unfamiliar wrote: post #2

I've read a few of Linus' rants and been on the fence, but this one does seem to have crossed some sort of line into being unnecessarily abusive, and to add to that, unclear communication. The rewritten version really does emphasise a much better approach. Linus's rant doesn't read like it was written by... a stable person. I was in full agreement with the article up until this: >Of the many things I could say about…

Shanley Kane criticised Linus and got her and her family's addresses posted, death threats, rape threats, and other horrific abuse. If you think gender isn't an issue, you haven't educated yourself well enough.

This comment is very amusing in the context of the article. Shanley Kane uses abusive language, at minimum, two orders of magnitude more often than Linus does.

Re: Abuse is indefensible

#155

Post by tehbeard » Wed, Nov 04, 2015, 3:05 PM UTC

ZanyProgrammer wrote: post #19

Why is it that people who support Linus' tirades and mention freedom of speech, etc get so incredibly hurt when others exercise their own freedom of speech and point out how abusive they are?

So people aren't allowed to be offended by other people being offended of them?

Re: Abuse is indefensible

#156

Post by tptacek » Wed, Nov 04, 2015, 3:05 PM UTC

x1024 wrote: post #150

tptacek wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that's not what Linus is saying. It's close to the opposite of what he's saying (overflow_usub wraps a builtin). You obviously can't simply use the builtin addition and subtraction of unsigned integers in safe code, because in modern C, integers wrap. Returning to the thread: why are you so comfortable extrapolating from Linus's rant to "this code would ruin the Linux kernel"? You don't grok the code he's talking…

In the discussion Linus is providing his suggested code, which is literally "just a builtin addition", but your opinion is that "He says that you can't use builtin addition". OK, sure.

That is not in fact what Linus is saying. At this point you might want to take my word for it.

Re: Abuse is indefensible

#157

Post by tptacek » Wed, Nov 04, 2015, 3:11 PM UTC

marrs wrote: post #118

As I understand it, the Linux codebase has hundreds of regular contributors and Torvalds basically spends his entire time reviewing patches to an operating system kernel that is used in countless mission-critical scenarios across the world. The implications of introducing a bug or security exploit to an OS kernel could be as severe as loss of life. With that in mind, I find myself wondering every time I read a report…

"Such an error"? What error?

Re: Abuse is indefensible

#158

Post by enneff » Wed, Nov 04, 2015, 3:11 PM UTC

pervycreeper wrote: post #68

I am troubled by this obsession that these activists have with Torvalds. Could there be anything more minor than these complaints about tone? What harm does the existence of one software project which permits 'rants' do to others? Do those who claim to desire civility not understand that by hounding and inundating him and the community in general with the same talking points ad infinitum, they are themselves being un…

> Eric S. Raymond alleged yesterday that feminist groups have been repeatedly attempting to frame him for sexual assault!

And you take this seriously because... ?

Re: Abuse is indefensible

#159

Post by mikeash » Wed, Nov 04, 2015, 3:11 PM UTC

marrs wrote: post #146

mikeash wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"We should be careful to get out of an experience only the wisdom that is in it and stop there lest we be like the cat that sits down on a hot stove lid. She will never sit down on a hot stove lid again and that is well but also she will never sit down on a cold one anymore." The lesson a lot of people are going to learn from this is, "Don't submit any code to Linux." Not submitting code like this is merely going to…

The lesson a lot of people are going to learn from this is, "Don't submit any code to Linux." That's true, but not really a problem. Linux is one of the most popular open source projects out there.

It's still a problem if you want to keep it that way, or if you value quality over quantity.

Re: Abuse is indefensible

#160

Post by pervycreeper » Wed, Nov 04, 2015, 3:11 PM UTC

comex wrote: post #121

pervycreeper wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wasn't aware of that crankery, however, that does not discredit these straightforward allegations (argumentum ad hominem). I should add that this particular tactic is already being practiced on the bigwigs in the atheist community, so it's far from implausible.

The allegations have absolutely no evidence behind them. In that case of course one should take into account their source's general credibility, or lack thereof. As for the atheist community, you will have to provide a source.

i) I think there's a difference between being a conspiracy theorist (allegedly; haven't looked into this), and being a liar. Credibility does not extend across domains, either. An authority on, say, OS design might be a complete fool when it comes to politics (for instance).

ii) Allegations have been made against Micheal Schirmer and Lawrence Krauss (not hard to find if you search for them).